Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But the cop did not say he was placing her in detention. And he only said she was under arrest after she was handcuffed. How can you resist arrest (or detention) if it is not being made clear?
Why don't you come to the 49ner Tavern in Long Beach, Ca between 4:30-5:30pm on a Friday night and find out for yourself?You are quite the emotional little girl aren't you. Hate to see you when you break a nail
You're the one acting like the people of Weimar, why don't you move there?But you're the one bitching about cops. Move to Baltimore.
Yeah, black is white, up is down and Len Bias is still alive. I don't know what alternate universe you live in, but here on planet earth, that cop was a racist asshole.I don't see how the cops are supposed to be racist. If anyone was racist, it was the person getting detained.
He told her he'd give her 2 minutes to make her phone call. 20 seconds later, he was taking her to the ground. He had no right treating her like she broke the law and it is against the law for him to ask her for her ID without probable cause.Also, this woman was stupid. You know if you walk away from an investigating cop that you're going to get detained.
Go read the Military Commissions Act. That gives the government the right to lock you up without charges. All that is required is someone from the Defense Dept to declare you an "unprivileged enemy combatant" and you're fuckin' history.I doubt that it is true the police can indefinitely detain you without charges for life, and that isn't happening here.
Yes it can.No it can't.
Yes I am!The OP is one funny dude !
Kraut.German?
You have some corny Bette Midler signature, but are calling me a lunatic?A certified lunatic.
It really depends on the state one is in. 22 states require a person to produce identification or name and address when asked for said info by a law enforcement officer.No crime was commited, the officer admitted this fact, therefore the woman was within her rights to refuse giving her full details.
This is a universal problem and is not confined to the U.S.A.
It really depends on the state one is in. 22 states require a person to produce identification or name and address when asked for said info by a law enforcement officer.No crime was commited, the officer admitted this fact, therefore the woman was within her rights to refuse giving her full details.
This is a universal problem and is not confined to the U.S.A.
Evidently it is not required in California, and as such the officer overstepped his authority. This whole episode was being handled well by the officer until the word "white" was used. This seemed to me, to outrage the officer, and lead to his overreaction.
It really depends on the state one is in. 22 states require a person to produce identification or name and address when asked for said info by a law enforcement officer.No crime was commited, the officer admitted this fact, therefore the woman was within her rights to refuse giving her full details.
This is a universal problem and is not confined to the U.S.A.
Evidently it is not required in California, and as such the officer overstepped his authority. This whole episode was being handled well by the officer until the word "white" was used. This seemed to me, to outrage the officer, and lead to his overreaction.
California law cant supercede federal law.
And under federal SCOTUS ruling Terry v. Ohio...a person must identify themselves if they are part of an investigation of a "POSSIBLE" but not yet confirmed crime.
Did a crime POSSIBLY occur? Yes. She may have attempted to vandalize the womans car. She may have committed a violation of laws governing school property behavior.
Was the crime confirmed? Well...the cop was trying to by INVESTIGATING it. It looked like his hunch was there wouldnt be charges.
If anything. ..his investigation was going to simply confirm no crime occurred.
But that bitch had to "Keep It Real" and act like ghetto trash.
It really depends on the state one is in. 22 states require a person to produce identification or name and address when asked for said info by a law enforcement officer.No crime was commited, the officer admitted this fact, therefore the woman was within her rights to refuse giving her full details.
This is a universal problem and is not confined to the U.S.A.
Evidently it is not required in California, and as such the officer overstepped his authority. This whole episode was being handled well by the officer until the word "white" was used. This seemed to me, to outrage the officer, and lead to his overreaction.
California law cant supercede federal law.
And under federal SCOTUS ruling Terry v. Ohio...a person must identify themselves if they are part of an investigation of a "POSSIBLE" but not yet confirmed crime.
Did a crime POSSIBLY occur? Yes. She may have attempted to vandalize the womans car. She may have committed a violation of laws governing school property behavior.
Was the crime confirmed? Well...the cop was trying to by INVESTIGATING it. It looked like his hunch was there wouldnt be charges.
If anything. ..his investigation was going to simply confirm no crime occurred.
But that bitch had to "Keep It Real" and act like ghetto trash.
Yes the woman did overreact as well, but the officer could have defused the encouter with a more moderate approach.
It really depends on the state one is in. 22 states require a person to produce identification or name and address when asked for said info by a law enforcement officer.No crime was commited, the officer admitted this fact, therefore the woman was within her rights to refuse giving her full details.
This is a universal problem and is not confined to the U.S.A.
Evidently it is not required in California, and as such the officer overstepped his authority. This whole episode was being handled well by the officer until the word "white" was used. This seemed to me, to outrage the officer, and lead to his overreaction.
California law cant supercede federal law.
And under federal SCOTUS ruling Terry v. Ohio...a person must identify themselves if they are part of an investigation of a "POSSIBLE" but not yet confirmed crime.
Did a crime POSSIBLY occur? Yes. She may have attempted to vandalize the womans car. She may have committed a violation of laws governing school property behavior.
Was the crime confirmed? Well...the cop was trying to by INVESTIGATING it. It looked like his hunch was there wouldnt be charges.
If anything. ..his investigation was going to simply confirm no crime occurred.
But that bitch had to "Keep It Real" and act like ghetto trash.
Yes the woman did overreact as well, but the officer could have defused the encouter with a more moderate approach.
Such as??? What should he just let her walk off and follow her like a lost dog? How long should they wait on her? What if she just ignored them and went to drive away?
Its just ridiculous. Stop being ghetto trash.
Kraut.German?
Not really. I'm reflecting your own racism back to you. Leftists hate looking in a mirror.It's actually more of an awkward primate loping stride.Dealing with blacks should no longer be a Cops job, call in animal control
Yet another example on this board of why minorities are running away from the republicans and conservatives.
Ah, you betray everything the GOP pretends to be.
It really depends on the state one is in. 22 states require a person to produce identification or name and address when asked for said info by a law enforcement officer.
Evidently it is not required in California, and as such the officer overstepped his authority. This whole episode was being handled well by the officer until the word "white" was used. This seemed to me, to outrage the officer, and lead to his overreaction.
California law cant supercede federal law.
And under federal SCOTUS ruling Terry v. Ohio...a person must identify themselves if they are part of an investigation of a "POSSIBLE" but not yet confirmed crime.
Did a crime POSSIBLY occur? Yes. She may have attempted to vandalize the womans car. She may have committed a violation of laws governing school property behavior.
Was the crime confirmed? Well...the cop was trying to by INVESTIGATING it. It looked like his hunch was there wouldnt be charges.
If anything. ..his investigation was going to simply confirm no crime occurred.
But that bitch had to "Keep It Real" and act like ghetto trash.
Yes the woman did overreact as well, but the officer could have defused the encouter with a more moderate approach.
Such as??? What should he just let her walk off and follow her like a lost dog? How long should they wait on her? What if she just ignored them and went to drive away?
Its just ridiculous. Stop being ghetto trash.
He could have allowed her the 2 minutes to answer as he had stated. This was not a major crime, it was an altercation between two individuals in a carpark, with no visible signs any crime had been commited.
Nothing short of a Constitutional Convention can nullify the Bill of Rights.Yes it can.No it can't.
The Military Commissions Act has nullified the Bill of Rights.
You are a lunatic if you think my love of swing music is something to poke fun at.You have some corny Bette Midler signature, but are calling me a lunatic?A certified lunatic.
Evidently it is not required in California, and as such the officer overstepped his authority. This whole episode was being handled well by the officer until the word "white" was used. This seemed to me, to outrage the officer, and lead to his overreaction.
California law cant supercede federal law.
And under federal SCOTUS ruling Terry v. Ohio...a person must identify themselves if they are part of an investigation of a "POSSIBLE" but not yet confirmed crime.
Did a crime POSSIBLY occur? Yes. She may have attempted to vandalize the womans car. She may have committed a violation of laws governing school property behavior.
Was the crime confirmed? Well...the cop was trying to by INVESTIGATING it. It looked like his hunch was there wouldnt be charges.
If anything. ..his investigation was going to simply confirm no crime occurred.
But that bitch had to "Keep It Real" and act like ghetto trash.
Yes the woman did overreact as well, but the officer could have defused the encouter with a more moderate approach.
Such as??? What should he just let her walk off and follow her like a lost dog? How long should they wait on her? What if she just ignored them and went to drive away?
Its just ridiculous. Stop being ghetto trash.
He could have allowed her the 2 minutes to answer as he had stated. This was not a major crime, it was an altercation between two individuals in a carpark, with no visible signs any crime had been commited.
What if that didnt work? What if she wanted 20?
She needs to realize that our society has rules. She has to follow them.
